To my eye, the biggest difference here is attributable to sharpening. The X100 crop on the left could use a lot more sharpening, and the X100S crop on the right is on the verge of oversharpened. But could the default JPEGs really look this different? I find it really hard to believe. X100 and X-E1 JPEGs don't look as different as this!

Now that is a dramatic difference. Again, a good part of it comes down to sharpening, but the detail gap is larger here than it was with the X100-X100S example above. Having tested the X10 against a few other small sensor compacts, I have found that - while it is has a superb sensor in all regards - it captures noticeably less detail than some of the others. Perhaps the X20 will be significantly better in terms of resolution.

The X10 and X100 both have wonderful image quality, at or close to the top of their respective categories. How much better can their replacements be? I'm looking forward to finding out.

To my eyes, the X100 did a petty darn good job capturing detail. I'll be surprised if the new X-Trans sensor actually gives sharper images. On the XPro1 and XE1, I typically increase the in camera sharpening so that the photos would look sharper.

I started out with a 3G, skipped the 3Gs now I have a 4. I have no desire to get the 4s but I will look into the 5
Conversely, I have the x100. I'll skip the x100s but I will look at what will be presented after the x100s

I started out with a 3G, skipped the 3Gs now I have a 4. I have no desire to get the 4s but I will look into the 5
Conversely, I have the x100. I'll skip the x100s but I will look at what will be presented after the x100s

Click to expand...

I'm kind of like you, except I usually start with the s variants so most of the bugs are already worked out. I have an iPhone 4s by the way.

Meanwhile, I think we all share Amin's curiosity about the real-world images from the new Fuji sensors. In fact, a lot of questions in many of the other threads posted so far boil down this. I'm highly impressed so far.

I started out with a 3G, skipped the 3Gs now I have a 4. I have no desire to get the 4s but I will look into the 5
Conversely, I have the x100. I'll skip the x100s but I will look at what will be presented after the x100s

Click to expand...

One thing Fuji has in common with Apple are that they aren't shy about saying how much better the new models are compared to the ones they're replacing.

To my eyes, the X100 did a petty darn good job capturing detail. I'll be surprised if the new X-Trans sensor actually gives sharper images. On the XPro1 and XE1, I typically increase the in camera sharpening so that the photos would look sharper.

Click to expand...

As an owner of both the X Pro and X100 I would disagree with this. The improvements to the X100S include more than a sensor upgrade. They also include a new EXR processor which I think will be in the upgraded versions of the new X Pro and X-E next year along with the several other improvements.

Also either way on a 12 X 18 print you aren't going to notice that crop. Just sayin'.

I do agree with Amin that the bigger difference will be noticeable between the X10 and X20. Where you might really notice a difference on the new X100 will be a smaller apertures like F11 and F16.

I think every computer and camera company and car company and cereal company tells you it's product is the best. People just have to decide for themselves if it's the best product for them. If not, don't buy it and get the one you like. I'm really happy with the Fuji cameras so I don't worry about the other brands. Personally I think all these cameras are great and any shortcomings usually come down to not learning how to use them. I'm still learning how to use the X Pro. Most days are worse than better but I'm still working on it.

As an Apple user I guess go along with the Apple comparison. Both companies do tend to approach their products from a different perspective.

That said, I think the thing most people miss about Fuji is they are also a film company. Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Olympus/Sony/Panasonic aren't film companies. If you read the interview with the Fuji rep posted here I think, she goes into great detail about the proper way to expose Fuji Astia 100. I think this informs a lot of what they do product wise. Of all the cameras I've used, Fuji has the most distinct look to it's files (this is also true of their older DSLR's like the S5 Pro which just has these incredible skin tones right out of the camera). So they are very different than say a company who only makes cameras and lenses or a company who also makes TV's. I'm not saying they are better, but they are different. Their film heritage (and it's every bit as distinctive/distinguished as Kodak if not more so) heavily influences their camera/sensor designs.

The thing about Apple is that they're so all in on their current product and then reverse hard on it when the new one comes out. As an example, the Power PC architecture was flat out superior to Intel until the moment they went with Intel. Another example was how the iPhone 4 was the perfect size for the human hand until the iPhone 5 was bigger.

These Fuji samples don't just make the new cameras look good. They make the old ones look bad by comparison. I know the old ones are great. Just a little surprised to see Fuji making them look so outdone.

That said, I think the thing most people miss about Fuji is they are also a film company. Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Olympus/Sony/Panasonic aren't film companies. If you read the interview with the Fuji rep posted here I think, she goes into great detail about the proper way to expose Fuji Astia 100. I think this informs a lot of what they do product wise. Of all the cameras I've used, Fuji has the most distinct look to it's files (this is also true of their older DSLR's like the S5 Pro which just has these incredible skin tones right out of the camera). So they are very different than say a company who only makes cameras and lenses or a company who also makes TV's. I'm not saying they are better, but they are different. Their film heritage (and it's every bit as distinctive/distinguished as Kodak if not more so) heavily influences their camera/sensor designs.

Click to expand...

I couldn't have said this any better. I firmly believe the fact that Kodak and Fuji were longtime film producers heavily informed their engineering of digital sensors and writing of image-processing software - and it clearly showed with both companies' products. There's a reason Leica went with Kodak sensors. It's too bad that Kodak got out of making their own digital cameras. The company's cameras, through the early part of the last decade, clearly displayed a sophisticated approach to image processing. Photos taken with ten-year-old, 3mp, Kodak cameras still look great today. Fuji's serious cameras still show that sophistication today. In this light, the excellent jpgs offered by Olympus's four-thirds and micro four-thirds cameras is all that more impressive as the company has no experience in making film and doesn't make its own sensors.

I get that the X100s and X20 should be improvements over the X100 and X10, since the sensors are clearly upgrades (problems with raw processing aside). But these sensors are now the same as the ones in the X-Pro and XE1, no? Are they claiming IQ improvements over those due to the magic of processing? I know the AF will be faster and there will be some cool tricks, but are they claiming better IQ?

The thing about Apple is that they're so all in on their current product and then reverse hard on it when the new one comes out. As an example, the Power PC architecture was flat out superior to Intel until the moment they went with Intel. Another example was how the iPhone 4 was the perfect size for the human hand until the iPhone 5 was bigger.

These Fuji samples don't just make the new cameras look good. They make the old ones look bad by comparison. I know the old ones are great. Just a little surprised to see Fuji making them look so outdone.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying. I think the thing is they were really out of the camera business for awhile except for consumer grade compacts. I'm not sure when they made their last DSLR but the S5 I have is a few years old. Yes, it used Nikon lenses but it had it's own quirky sensor (BTW- they still go for about $550 if you can find someone that will part with theirs.....) I think they are on a learning curve but in their own subjective way. Now one can rightly feel like they got cheated if they think this or that new model is that much better. But think about how many variations of the EP's Olympus released or how many DSLR's Canon/Nikon have. I'm not criticizing those companies. It's just the nature of the business. I do think one has to commend Fuji for the many firmware upgrades they have made to their cameras in response to their customers "bitchin'" Sorry I just couldn't resist that one.

They are kind of weird Fine Art cameras in a way. They don't focus fast, they don't have all the bells and whistles that other cameras have, they don't really do video for all practical purposes. What they do is color (much like their various film stocks) and the lenses are very distinct. People that have complained about the lenses are just way off base. The lens on the X100 and the 3 lenses I've used for the X Pro are top notch.

They just aren't your normal digital camera company. I don't think that will really change. I think the fact that so many people in the company are film people is a big deal. Big organizations like that tend to take on their own personality.

I get that the X100s and X20 should be improvements over the X100 and X10, since the sensors are clearly upgrades (problems with raw processing aside). But these sensors are now the same as the ones in the X-Pro and XE1, no? Are they claiming IQ improvements over those due to the magic of processing? I know the AF will be faster and there will be some cool tricks, but are they claiming better IQ?

-Ray

Click to expand...

Yes I do think if you are doing 100% crop type comparisons there will be a difference between the cameras with the new Processor and the Lens Modulation feature (at F11 and F16). Whether that is good enough, or better enough, or whatever is really to some degree a subjective judgement. It's not my thing. I just like colors but it's a perfectly valid way of doing photography. Heck I rarely ever sharpen anything. I'm not really interested in the new processor or Lens Modulation thingy. I just want that sensor with the colors.

I couldn't have said this any better. I firmly believe the fact that Kodak and Fuji were longtime film producers heavily informed their engineering of digital sensors and writing of image-processing software - and it clearly showed with both companies' products. There's a reason Leica went with Kodak sensors. It's too bad that Kodak got out of making their own digital cameras. The company's cameras, through the early part of the last decade, clearly displayed a sophisticated approach to image processing. Photos taken with ten-year-old, 3mp, Kodak cameras still look great today. Fuji's serious cameras still show that sophistication today. In this light, the excellent jpgs offered by Olympus's four-thirds and micro four-thirds cameras is all that more impressive as the company has no experience in making film and doesn't make its own sensors.

Click to expand...

I can't afford Leica but wow they do make beautiful photos and they aren't clinical. While I'm sure an awful lot of it are the incredible lenses, there is something to the sensor too. I respect that, they are doing their own thing. If you like it great, if you don't no big deal.

I believe I read somewhere that the exemplary images are simulations, as opposed to actual photos using the X100S and X20. Not sure if that's true or not.

Click to expand...

I have no particular knowledge about this, but I think that you could be correct.

If you take the sample x10 and x20 images into PS as separate layers, and align them, they are suspiciously similar. There's what appears to be a slight perspective difference (can't see why this would be), but otherwise the eye and eyelashes are in pretty much identical positions. I doubt that the model could have kept everything in such perfect alignment between shots. I would have thought that the eyes are particularly difficult in this regard.

FujiXspot is not affiliated with Fujifilm Corporation or any of its holdings.

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.